Enriching activity theory without shortcuts

Abstract

Attempts to identify an intermediate unit between collective activity and individual action within activity theory are useful and necessary. While several possible conceptualizations have been put forward, engagement is a relevant candidate for naming such a unit. However, the elaboration of such a unit opens up difficult theoretical questions which should not be overlooked. To avoid shortcuts in this endeavor, I discuss four challenges, namely (1) outcomes, not just purposes as the driving force of engagements, (2) dimensions and types of engagements, (3) the linear-temporal and socio-spatial aspects of engagements, and (4) the importance of contradictions, alienation and expansion in the analysis of engagements.